Re: A non-standard "permissive" license


Philippe Ombredanne
 

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Tom Incorvia
<tom.incorvia@...> wrote:
I believe that we will be best served by having as broad a license list as
possible, and to have every license on the list be supported.
If the Leptonica license occurs in the wild and has consistent, matchable
license text, lets vet it an put it into the SPDX list just like any other
license.
This is an interesting case. I am not sure that we should support as
broad a list as possible.
The current SPDX spec has support for direct reference (LicenseRef) to
these less common license texts as-is without giving them a name and
needing to include them in the list.

While this is probably not SPDX role to take sides in the license
proliferation debate, all licenses are not equal and may not deserve
the implicit promotion of being included as an SPDX "named" license
list. Giving an SPDX name to a license grants it an implied prominence
and promotion as the SPDX license list is becoming the de-facto
reference for many. We have certainly a responsibility there: in
promoting a license by including it in the SPDX list it is likely to
become less rare. Beside there is a clear maintenance burden on us to
manage a large unbounded list of SPDX licenses.

With that said, Guillaume point to private naming of licenses is a
valid one. That could be best supported by supporting appropriate
private namespacing (which is something RDF does very well) and could
be something to design for future specs versions

--
Philippe Ombredanne

+1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne@...
DejaCode Enterprise at http://www.dejacode.com
nexB Inc. at http://www.nexb.com

Join Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.